Sorry, I'm apparently feeling more snarky than conversational. Yes, there's an asymmetrical element to a DB, but each lapel has the same shape. The asymmetry to which I referred would be more like having a traditional DB lapel on one side and nehru style on the other.

Sorry, I'm apparently feeling more snarky than conversational. Yes, there's an asymmetrical element to a DB, but each lapel has the same shape. The asymmetry to which I referred would be more like having a traditional DB lapel on one side and nehru style on the other.

I've seen a few asymmetric hems on tench coats lately. Can't say I've been enamoured of them, but I do like some asymmetric t-shirts worn as a layer...sorry, will try not to draw the discussion away from classic clothing.

I generally like the over-thinking we do here on StyleForum, esp on CM, but sometimes - the hyper rational, overly analytic mindset suffocates the spirit of aesthetics. I mean, on some level, you either like the cut or you don't. And while that coat isn't something I could pull off - partly because I'm a conservative, quiet introvert who works in academia - that doesn't mean that it's not a beautiful coat. Fine if others don't like it, but breaking it down into whether it's because of asymmetry or lack of function kind of kills the joy of style.

Like hendrix said, there's tons of designs we like that are asymmetrical. Ticket pockets, breast pockets, etc. And tons of things we like that serve no function (other than aesthetics). Ties, hanks, etc. Most people here don't like it because it's not a classic design. Don't know if it's more complicated than that.

Sorry, I'm apparently feeling more snarky than conversational. Yes, there's an asymmetrical element to a DB, but each lapel has the same shape. The asymmetry to which I referred would be more like having a traditional DB lapel on one side and nehru style on the other.

Most suit coats in the classic canon has asymmetry and it goes by the guise of a breast pocket. If you pop in a pocket square you highlight that asymmetry.

I generally like the over-thinking we do here on StyleForum, esp on CM, but sometimes - the hyper rational, overly analytic mindset suffocates the spirit of aesthetics. I mean, on some level, you either like the cut or you don't.

Yes.

Some have a rigid view of what is classic dress. But the evolution of tailoring is one of innovation, both functional and ornamental. It is not set in aspic by any means. I understand why they are trying to ring-fence it though.

I generally like the over-thinking we do here on StyleForum, esp on CM, but sometimes - the hyper rational, overly analytic mindset suffocates the spirit of aesthetics. I mean, on some level, you either like the cut or you don't. And while that coat isn't something I could pull off - partly because I'm a conservative, quiet introvert who works in academia - that doesn't mean that it's not a beautiful coat. Fine if others don't like it, but breaking it down into whether it's because of asymmetry or lack of function kind of kills the joy of style.

Like hendrix said, there's tons of designs we like that are asymmetrical. Ticket pockets, breast pockets, etc. And tons of things we like that serve no function (other than aesthetics). Ties, hanks, etc. Most people here don't like it because it's not a classic design. Don't know if it's more complicated than that.

Not enamoured of taub designs, curved yoke is cheesy, asymmetrical coat is hideous.

I also don't get why people are trying to be obtuse about the point sugerbutch is tying to make.

Thank you for understanding.

As for the coat I quoted, I am intrigued by it. If I were an internet bigtimer who could afford bespoke whims, I might actually take a flyer on it. I would, however, commission it with an acceptance that I might later find it to be a bit gimmicky. Or not!

I generally like the over-thinking we do here on StyleForum, esp on CM, but sometimes - the hyper rational, overly analytic mindset suffocates the spirit of aesthetics. I mean, on some level, you either like the cut or you don't. And while that coat isn't something I could pull off - partly because I'm a conservative, quiet introvert who works in academia - that doesn't mean that it's not a beautiful coat. Fine if others don't like it, but breaking it down into whether it's because of asymmetry or lack of function kind of kills the joy of style.

Like hendrix said, there's tons of designs we like that are asymmetrical. Ticket pockets, breast pockets, etc. And tons of things we like that serve no function (other than aesthetics). Ties, hanks, etc. Most people here don't like it because it's not a classic design. Don't know if it's more complicated than that.

I have to disagree (surprise!)

Rationality is the hidden fabric of beautiful things. That's why art that demands respect and admiration can be discussed in such great depth. Good art only becomes more beautiful to the observer under scrutiny, critique, and contemplation. It is arguably bad art otherwise. The same thing goes for books, music, buildings, etc. Now, that's not to say good art can be wholly "figured out." Rational, logical analysis reveals mysteries as well as contradictions. The latter may kill the beauty in a thing, but not so the former. We can all live with a little mystery. In fact, it might be necessary to hold our interest.

The problem with the Taub coats posted here is not that they include new features. It's that those new features are bad. They are bad in terms of classic menswear because the value of such clothing is intrinsically tied to its classic-ness. There is very little good reason to wear a tie or to have lapels and a breast pocket anymore. It is just as there is no particularly good reason we say "hello" to greet people in English--other than that is what we have always done and it is well-understood by others. Hence, reckless expansion of the classic menswear language would only eat away at what makes it a worthwhile venture to begin with. Funny back yokes are reckless because they have neither a functional purpose, any clear aesthetic message, nor any apparent grounding in classic norms. It's like making up a new word without a defined meaning. Just guttural noise.

Now, maybe you aren't concerned with what's good or bad in terms of classic menswear. But then, one should ask, why express a broader artistic vision so meekly? It's like wearing a fun tie. It is a sad effort at rebellion and expressiveness when one does not have the courage or intellect to fully shake off his shackles. Don't just give me an overcoat with a slash through it--give me a new, better overcoat.

If Eric Glennie had proposed an asymmetrical back yoke, would anyone be on board?

Rationality is the hidden fabric of beautiful things. That's why art that demands respect and admiration can be discussed in such great depth. Good art only becomes more beautiful to the observer under scrutiny, critique, and contemplation. It is arguably bad art otherwise. The same thing goes for books, music, buildings, etc. Now, that's not to say good art can be wholly "figured out." Rational, logical analysis reveals mysteries as well as contradictions. The latter may kill the beauty in a thing, but not so the former. We can all live with a little mystery. In fact, it might be necessary to hold our interest.

The problem with the Taub coats posted here is not that they include new features. It's that those new features are bad. They are bad in terms of classic menswear because the value of such clothing is intrinsically tied to its classic-ness. There is very little good reason to wear a tie or to have lapels and a breast pocket anymore. It is just as there is no particularly good reason we say "hello" to greet people in English--other than that is what we have always done and it is well-understood by others. Hence, reckless expansion of the classic menswear language would only eat away at what makes it a worthwhile venture to begin with. Funny back yokes are reckless because they have neither a functional purpose, any clear aesthetic message, nor any apparent grounding in classic norms. It's like making up a new word without a defined meaning. Just guttural noise.

Now, maybe you aren't concerned with what's good or bad in terms of classic menswear. But then, one should ask, why express a broader artistic vision so meekly? It's like wearing a fun tie. It is a sad effort at rebellion and expressiveness when one does not have the courage or intellect to fully shake off his shackles. Don't just give me an overcoat with a slash through it--give me a new, better overcoat.

I think the real joy comes when one can "let go" of many of the critiques after you know how to critique - if that makes sense. One can look as deeply into something and be as nitpicky as possible, but is that truly enjoyable? I think it takes some of the fun out of things. I think it's important one goes through that phase of constant scrutiny to truly appreciate what they do like. But I think it's good that one evolves from that for true enjoyment of their surroundings. That's just me though.

I'm not sure why we're judging his work on its "classic-ness" when it's clear he was never trying to be classic in the first place. It's not like he was trying to make a classic coat and accidentally mucked it up. He was purposefully trying to make an avant garde piece that fit some other aesthetic. This is like judging a piece of heavy metal music by whether or not it fit into the canon of Western classical.

I'm not against nit picking things, but I don't know if rationality is the fabric of beautiful things. If everything that was beautiful had some rational science to it, we could imagine one day inventing machines programmed to endlessly create "perfect" art. IMO, we find things that are beautiful, on a gut level, and then we try to explain why it's beautiful to us, which takes a bit of rationalizing. But the first feeling is emotional.Edited by dieworkwear - 1/24/13 at 10:41am